You believe the Bible is on the same level as everything else written by the church fathers, people that believe in the Bible realize that 1) The Bible would not have been canonized and referred to seperately if it was not more authoritative than other writings 2) You can say the church/tradition is obviously 'superior' to the Bible only up to the point that it was canonized, there is no separate 'tradition' apart from writings today, it is all written down, and the Bible is obviously its foundation stone. The analogy of 'mother - child' does no apply anymore, as the knowledge of the faith of everyone for the past 1800 years or more was founded centrally on the Bible, it is 'mother.' Also, the Bible has always been referred to as 'holy' (ta biblia ta hagia) whereas the writings of the church fathers have not.

Except the bible is not the foundation stone. The church and the teachings have existed before any of the new testament was written. Jesus taught it all to the apostles. Are we to assume we have hte fullness of faith? We don't make tradition superior to the bible, we recognise its central place and that ultimately without it the bible does fall apart as you have seemed to have admitted. It needed to be canonised you said, by whom? None of hte apostles had this idea of a bible, nor was there ever a universal canon of scripture for all the churches, there were different canons in different churches.

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

You believe the Bible is on the same level as everything else written by the church fathers, people that believe in the Bible realize that 1) The Bible would not have been canonized and referred to seperately if it was not more authoritative than other writings 2) You can say the church/tradition is obviously 'superior' to the Bible only up to the point that it was canonized, there is no separate 'tradition' apart from writings today, it is all written down, and the Bible is obviously its foundation stone. The analogy of 'mother - child' does no apply anymore, as the knowledge of the faith of everyone for the past 1800 years or more was founded centrally on the Bible, it is 'mother.' Also, the Bible has always been referred to as 'holy' (ta biblia ta hagia) whereas the writings of the church fathers have not.

Except the bible is not the foundation stone. The church and the teachings have existed before any of the new testament was written. Jesus taught it all to the apostles. Are we to assume we have hte fullness of faith? We don't make tradition superior to the bible, we recognise its central place and that ultimately without it the bible does fall apart as you have seemed to have admitted. It needed to be canonised you said, by whom? None of hte apostles had this idea of a bible, nor was there ever a universal canon of scripture for all the churches, there were different canons in different churches.

I would ask you, why do you trust 3rd John as scripture?

I already address this, once it was canonized and time has passed, it has become central. There were canons before the councils, I know Irenaeus at least had one. If you read all the church fathers but neglect the Bible you are missing something essential.

Honestly, the idea that the Bible is not now central falls right in there with those who say Jesus really didn't mean what he said when he said "This is my body." Christians of all denominations struggle hard to use sophistry to deny the plain evident reality, making it all seem suspect.

I'd love a more detailed analysis. I totally understand though if you don't want to go there

Was this in response to me? If so, I have no problem offering a detailed analysis. Essentially, it boils down to a simple Socratic method of asking them questions and leading them to discover the contradictions within their own beliefs. It doesn't always work (that is, they don't always realize that the term sola fide and the like is empty and they really don't believe in it), but the content of their belief becomes much more similar to our own, and I'm okay with that. Baby steps and all.

I won't go into detail yet just in case that statement wasn't aimed at me.

Just go ahead, I would love to see what you have to say on this matter. I'm familiar (slightly) with the Socratic method, but I would like to know what kind of questions you would ask them.

Typically, the most common question I ask if, "If you say the Bible should be interpreted as x, but no one even came close to interpreting it that way for 1,500 years, why should I trust your interpretation? That is, if those who spoke Greek as a native language and came from the same culture as the authors of the New Testament interpreted the Bible as y, yet you interpret the Bible as x, why should I trust you over them?" Typically - at least in my experience - the default reply is to the historical-grammatical method of exegesis along with quotes from Luther and Calvin. To that, I simply ask, "If it's legitimate to use Luther and Calvin as aids to interpreting the Bible, since they were greatly educated, wouldn't it also be valid to use St. John of Damascus or St. Ignatius to aid in interpreting the Bible?" Typically, if they're being fair, they'll say yes. At that point, you're back to the original question - why would Luther or Calvin be more valid in aiding our interpretation than those who spoke Greek as a native language?

With this line of questioning, what I've found is many are willing to admit that Protestants don't trust the Fathers as much as they should. However, they quickly turn to defend their Solas and anti-sacramental attitude. But again, this is all done away with questioning. With Sola Fide, for instance, you ask them to define what "faith alone" really means. Typically, they will say that we are saved by placing our faith in Christ and that we can do nothing that will save us. This is generally in response to the Sacraments; taking communion doesn't save us, baptism doesn't save us, confession doesn't save us, and so on. Rather than arguing back, it's best to actually agree, because they're right. The simple act of taking communion or being baptized doesn't save you. Faith must accompany such acts. If you take these acts as a mere cultural sign, as a way to fit into your community, or because that's just how you were raised, that doesn't save you. That's when you can say, "So we agree that works alone won't save you."

But as you go on, you ask, "So if John places his faith in Christ, but then goes on to live his life as he sees fit, is he really saved?" Typically, they respond with no because no works came from the faith, so the faith wasn't real. Again, nothing in Orthodox theology would disagree with that; they're right, if faith doesn't produce works then it's not faith. But at the point they say it doesn't produce works, they've just disavowed sola fide. So why press it? Why get them to disavow the term when the content of what they believe is similar to what we believe? If anything, all they've admitted is that sola fide is more apophatic than anything else; it denies that one can be saved by works without having faith, that one cannot be saved by simply going through the motions. But again, who would disagree with this? Eventually, once they admit this, you can slowly question them on if "by faith alone" is really the best term for a belief that requires works to accompany faith to prove the existence of faith.

It's the same with sola scriptura. "By Scripture alone." But when they engage in an argument, they're referring to different Greek dictionaries, different scholars, different interpretations, and so on. If you have to write an exegetical paper in Seminary you're required to use no less than 8 commentaries; so how is that Scripture alone? That's Scripture plus interpretation plus interpretative traditions. The key, however, is getting them to realize this by questioning them. "If Scripture alone is sufficient, then why is there so much disagreement over how to interpret that Scripture?" In fact, we could even agree that Scripture is truly inspired - we do agree on this - but point out that we are fallible. We can't just quote Scripture and be done with it, we have to interpret it, and that act of interpretation involves using multiple sources.

So I ask, "When interpreting Scripture, since you believe all authority derives from Scripture, is it appropriate to quote modern scholars' interpretation on Scripture?" The obvious answer is yes. "Then if it's okay to quote modern scholars, what about ancient scholars, such as Erasmus or Calvin?" The answer to this is, of course, yes. "What about those before them? Can we quote the Church Fathers?" At this point, they may have some hesitation. But the goal is to get them to come up with some non-arbitrary standard as to why modern scholars are acceptable and ancient ones are not. Of course, the entire point isn't necessarily to get them to accept the Tradition of the Church (at least, not yet), but get them to see that they use tradition as much as we do, it's just a different tradition.

Ultimately, the goal isn't to prove to them that they're wrong and we're right. You'll accomplish nothing by doing this. You must understand that by being Protestant, they're protesting the errors of the Western church that they experienced. Essentially, Roman Catholics and Protestants are two sides of Augustine fighting against each other. So the goal should always be to find common ground and then build on that common ground through questioning. At the point they recognize a flaw in their own thinking, they can either press on or explore that flaw; you can't force them to do either one, you must allow them the choice.

Thank you! I find this method much more tactful than may others. I might have to try it.

On a side note, while I was at work today a gentleman asked me if I had a good Easter. I told him that I did have a good day, but that my Church did not celebrate Easter until later this year due to using a slightly different calendar. He asked where I went to church and I told him the two I usually go to.

He asked me what the doctrines that we believe are, and I told him (with out reciting the creed) Virgin birth, Trinity, deity of Christ (he asked that one specifically), and that we do venerate the Virgin Mary and the Saints. I also explained that we are the original Church dating all the way back to Jesus, and we are very liturgical, almost like the Romans, but with no Pope.

Unfortunately, we could not discuss this longer as we came upon the aisle and the item he was looking for. But overall I think it was good, especially as he was a Southern Baptist and very respectful to me - as was I to him (I did inform him that I used to be a Southern Baptist as well).

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

But first you have to prove that when these Fathers talked about Peter they had the Pope of Rome in mind.

what's your take on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

You really don't even have to be that specific. If someone wants to argue with you about the Bible being the sole source of authority in Christianity, just ask them where the Bible comes from. The vast majority will have no idea. If they say that they don't know, then just tell them you'd be happy to discuss the issue more after they learn some basic facts about their Bible.

Annoying conversation over.

What you are saying only applies to some Protestants.

What is often rejected is the idea of an infallible authority above the Bible, or an individual bishop ,or even the consensus of a particular Christian community, being infallible. Not all Orthodox pit Tradition alongside Scriptures, for instance Bishop Ware seems to have Scripture as primary within Tradition- not that different from what most Anglicans traditionally believed.

Some Protestants, like many Baptists or Presbyterians, emphasize the propositional nature of Scripture, that it's a a bunch of stuff to be believed, or else... Other Protestants are more evangelical in nature, the Bible's purpose is to point to the risen, living Christ and His saving works and the necessity of faith and repentence. Not that different from Eastern Orthodox, really. For the latter, how exactly a person knows what the contents of the Bible are is less (despite the fact the Bible never explicitly mentions this) is less important than believing in Jesus Christ: No Lutheran or Anglican asserts that believing in the doctrine of Sola Sciptura is necessary for salvation, merely that there is no infallible authority above the Bible that can tell a person how they must be saved. And that idea, sola sciptura, is taken on faith of course. But then, so is belief that the Pope is infallible.

For that matter, the great Anglican divine, Richard Hooker, in the 16th century argued that believing in justification by faith alone was not necessary to salvation, either, to the dismay of a puritan critic. In this regard, the Protestantism of Lutherans and Anglicans is much more Catholic than polemicists would admit.

The "Protestant" Bible class I have to take once a day (that is - taught by a "Protestant") has us reading a book that is very popular here in Nashville/the Bible Belt called "Jesus Calling" by Sarah Young. I find it to be utterly nourishing yet I was initially leary of it for the same reason these more Protestant Protestants explain(not the Catholic mystic influence but the thing that sounds like automatic writing: "The author of this book has talked about being influenced by a book written by two Catholic mystics. After she read their book, she decided to follow their example and sit, pen in hand, waiting to hear and record what God was “telling” her in audible words. Beware-beware-beware those who claim audible words from God today……this is NOT how God speaks to his people.

I highly recommend these shows for anyone reading this very popular book. I also encourage our readers to forward this 2-part interview to loved ones who may have become ensnared by the teachings in this book, which seems to be catching a lot of otherwise discerning Christians by surprise.

One caller familiar with Brannon’s show (a discernment ministry) called in saying that she was in the habit of reading the book Jesus Calling regularly, but now she was rethinking this, based on the concerns raised by Howse and Peters.

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” Hebrews 1:1-2

Pastor Justin Peters does a great job of explaining the theological implications of the term “the sufficiency of Scripture.” He also explains that many professing Christians today know enough to recognize that they should affirm this concept, but they then turn around and deny it by their actions (i.e., chasing after mystical, extra-biblical “words from God,” such as those in this book by Sarah Young)."

...Originally what I was gonna share in this reply was how (somehow this is connected with-)

most Protestants I come across nowadfays are sorta at least somewhat if not wholly anti-theological Christians wich makes them like pre-Church Christians in a sense and yeah they are just still often Protestant against corrupt Roman Catholicism not knowing about the early pre-Roman Catholic Church...Wich I think can be good.They are like starting from the bottom up-going into Christian life from the heart back up into the head hopefully keeping the connection ..or something like that.

Thank you all for an interesting topic. I personally would not try to cause a debate, but would ask a simple question: if two or more of us have different interpretations of the same Biblical verse, then who is to say which one of us is right? If someone really wishes to get a bit more debative then could ask the follow up question which might be more along the side of an argumentation: in order to determine the right interpretation, we need to look into the context which itself presuposes that we have to judge based on what we have been taught (which we can't do unless we rely on some type of a tradition). If we were to choose to believe that both of us have right to interpret Bible as we wish, then we would fall into relativising the Bible. If our brother or sister in Christ was to say that everything should be interpreted literally then we can bring up the quote when Jesus says about destroying the temple and building it anew in three days. If the choice was to interpret the Bible just metaphorically then that would deny the Christ's existence (birth and everything else He did.) The third and last way of inerpreting is a combination of literal and symbolic which then can only be done in respect to tradition in order to avoid interpering the Bible as anyone pleases....

What's wrong with interpreting the Bible "any way one pleases", at least, in theory? Is it really necessary to believe that Scriptures reveals God's will univocally (only one meaning possible)? Is God so unsophisticated?

What's wrong with interpreting the Bible "any way one pleases", at least, in theory? Is it really necessary to believe that Scriptures reveals God's will univocally (only one meaning possible)? Is God so unsophisticated?

Then God is the author of confusion and or true doctrine doesn't exist or really matter in the end.

What's wrong with interpreting the Bible "any way one pleases", at least, in theory? Is it really necessary to believe that Scriptures reveals God's will univocally (only one meaning possible)? Is God so unsophisticated?

why try to reduce God? If you believe that Bible can be interpreted subjectivelly in "any way one pleases" then two things happen: 1) you reject that Truth is objective which translates that we give the meaning to the Truth. 2) if two of us follow your suggestion and end up coming to different conclusion then how do we know which way is correct? We can't both be correct. The only solution is to appeal to somebody else, but to whom?

Pls have in mind that I do not wish to tell you what to do but instead explain why I interpret the Bible with the Orthodox commentary (aka Tradition). If you belive that Bible can be understood in any way you like then dear brother by all means you continue doing so.

What's wrong with interpreting the Bible "any way one pleases", at least, in theory? Is it really necessary to believe that Scriptures reveals God's will univocally (only one meaning possible)? Is God so unsophisticated?

no, but our ability to comprehend Him is.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Mark 4, 10-1310 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven! Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? Biblegateaway.com

There are other instances where Jesus interpreted the stories to people. Why would He do that if they could understand Him. Is it not in order to avoid confusion by interpreting God's Word incorrectly?

But first you have to prove that when these Fathers talked about Peter they had the Pope of Rome in mind.

what's your take on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so.

Yes, they did: the Churches in fact wrote letters "rebuking" him.

Only in the magical thinking of the Ultramontanists does "rebuke" means "submit to."

St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

and yet in the next section, although it was "very tedious" he does enumerate the succession in Asia:

Quote

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

and continues on

Quote

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Notice, the plural of "Churches.'

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

a simple question: if two or more of us have different interpretations of the same Biblical verse, then who is to say which one of us is right?

It depends on the verse and what the "two or more" people have to say about the passage. It could be they are all right, they are all wrong, or maybe one or two of them are right. Some passages are specific in nature about a specific topic resulting in only one possible conclusion while others are intended to teach more than one lesson.

What's wrong with interpreting the Bible "any way one pleases", at least, in theory? Is it really necessary to believe that Scriptures reveals God's will univocally (only one meaning possible)? Is God so unsophisticated?

God is not the unsophisticated one. We are, which is why He tends to keep things dumbed down...for us.

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

I guess st Meletius and the Saints of the 2nd Oecumenical Council didn't agree with him, and didnt feel bounded to ask his permission, nor to be in communion with him

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

I guess st Meletius and the Saints of the 2nd Oecumenical Council didn't agree with him, and didnt feel bounded to ask his permission, nor to be in communion with him

First reaction of Old Rome to the elevation of new Rome.

Still has a problem explaining Antioch's third place.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 01:10:57 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

a simple question: if two or more of us have different interpretations of the same Biblical verse, then who is to say which one of us is right?

It depends on the verse and what the "two or more" people have to say about the passage. It could be they are all right, they are all wrong, or maybe one or two of them are right. Some passages are specific in nature about a specific topic resulting in only one possible conclusion while others are intended to teach more than one lesson.

They cannot all be right if their interpretations are contrary to each other, while they can be all wrong.

But first you have to prove that when these Fathers talked about Peter they had the Pope of Rome in mind.

what's your take on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so.

Yes, they did: the Churches in fact wrote letters "rebuking" him.

Only in the magical thinking of the Ultramontanists does "rebuke" means "submit to."

St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

and yet in the next section, although it was "very tedious" he does enumerate the succession in Asia:

Quote

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

and continues on

Quote

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Notice, the plural of "Churches.'

why wouldn't it be plural/what I notice is you can't refute For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

#:::......God is not a book, and a book is not god !...........antiFaith, making god out to be a book...... antiFaith voids eucharist......there's no life in the scriptures..to impute life to the scripture is antiFaith......all antiApostolic's have antiFaith.......all modern beliefs; antiFaith.....i spent time checking...people have started complaining about it,..some trying to change...changing can be tricky...there's more to it ..once you get caught, a domino effect starts...........so..don't worry about winning a war of words...try to be helpful, and offer a correct truth.. they will not believe you.....so what..there ability to believe is up to them...stay calm.... it takes time to learn, sometimes years.........use a 66 book battle bible..kjv..works for all of them (don't use the right one on them)...these people are spiritually disordered, and bothered by thoughts running through there brains....*::: ..rev.2;2....jude.3.......2cor.11;4......christ discourse to the christkillers, he tells them what they THINK !. (jn.chap.5).........no bibleonly can truthfully say to anyone of the apostolic alters 'They went out from us,'.1jn.2;19...........remember those slap-ya up side the head falling down backwards going belly up's ?.. they call it 'being Slain in the spirit'.....it only took 1 verse to get them to vacate TV.(others will be back)..lk.19;27.........don't spend alot of time on them, because there trying to trap you, there bible believers, bibleonly, they allready think there right, james told us about the tongue jer.9;8 is.57;4

Due to numerous reports on your posting style you are being placed on Post Moderation until you can demonstrate the ability to post using a style that is closer to actual English. Your current posting style is confusing and disrupting the forum.

a simple question: if two or more of us have different interpretations of the same Biblical verse, then who is to say which one of us is right?

It depends on the verse and what the "two or more" people have to say about the passage. It could be they are all right, they are all wrong, or maybe one or two of them are right. Some passages are specific in nature about a specific topic resulting in only one possible conclusion while others are intended to teach more than one lesson.

They cannot all be right if their interpretations are contrary to each other, while they can be all wrong.

Start with James to show them that sola fide is wrong (2:14 to be exact). 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is also good for showing them that sola scriptura is wrong. If they refuse to listen then point out how they are poor protestants for not believing the Bible

James is old covenant. It was written BEFORE Paul's faith alone gospel. James makes no mention of the death of Christ, nor of the Holy Spirit. This should tell you that it is old covenant.

Start with James to show them that sola fide is wrong (2:14 to be exact). 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is also good for showing them that sola scriptura is wrong. If they refuse to listen then point out how they are poor protestants for not believing the Bible

James is old covenant. It was written BEFORE Paul's faith alone gospel. James makes no mention of the death of Christ, nor of the Holy Spirit. This should tell you that it is old covenant.

Start with James to show them that sola fide is wrong (2:14 to be exact). 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is also good for showing them that sola scriptura is wrong. If they refuse to listen then point out how they are poor protestants for not believing the Bible

James is old covenant. It was written BEFORE Paul's faith alone gospel. James makes no mention of the death of Christ, nor of the Holy Spirit. This should tell you that it is old covenant.

*headspin*

Wait...WHAT?!?!?!

*catches head*

I was actually going to ignore this comment. It is just way out in left field.

According to this guy's logic some of the OT should be in the NT since it speaks of the Holy Spirit and mentions the death of Christ. And I'm pretty sure the the Pauline epistles are the earliest writings we have of the NT, so this guy is just plain wrong.

Protestants have read James and have no problem quoting it. The sense that we are justified by faith and works is not the same thing that Paul is always talking about, which is that we are justified by a living faith alone, no works can add to that or replace that. James says that we are not justified by mere intellectual assent. Protestants agree completely- that sort of faith is useless.

I was actually going to ignore this comment. It is just way out in left field.

According to this guy's logic some of the OT should be in the NT since it speaks of the Holy Spirit and mentions the death of Christ.

So where do the old testament books speak of the death of Christ as a past historical event?

Quote

And I'm pretty sure the the Pauline epistles are the earliest writings we have of the NT, so this guy is just plain wrong.

I can't believe you said that Paul wrote before James. The epistle of James very early (about AD45)

James TOTALLY neglects the death of Christ. Nothing at all is said about Christ's death. How could a new covenant epistle TOTALLY neglect the death of Christ? James is either canonical but old covenant, or it is non-canonical.

You may ignore James' TOTAL silence on the death of Christ. I will not.

You are alleging that James was written in 45AD, but somehow saying that it was not written after Christ's death? How does that work exactly? When do you think Christ died?

Yes, James wrote his epistle after Christ's death, but BEFORE the meaning of His death had been given to the church. Until the meaning of Christ's death was revealed to Paul the first Christians had to remain under old covenant principles. Tertullian said, "God must be believed on in His own dispensation." The epistle of James was written while they were still under the dispensation of law. So they had to believe in God accordingly. But after Paul revealed the dispensation of grace they had to believe in God according to the new revelation given them. Therefore, the epistle of James was transitional.

Quote

Are you stating you believe that Paul instituted the new covenant and not Christ?

Paul was Christ's administrator of the new covenant appointed to do away the letter and to administer the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:5-6). James was letter and Paul was spirit.

You are alleging that James was written in 45AD, but somehow saying that it was not written after Christ's death? How does that work exactly? When do you think Christ died?

Yes, James wrote his epistle after Christ's death, but BEFORE the meaning of His death had been given to the church. Until the meaning of Christ's death was revealed to Paul the first Christians had to remain under old covenant principles. Tertullian said, "God must be believed on in His own dispensation." The epistle of James was written while they were still under the dispensation of law. So they had to believe in God accordingly. But after Paul revealed the dispensation of grace they had to believe in God according to the new revelation given them. Therefore, the epistle of James was transitional.

Quote

Are you stating you believe that Paul instituted the new covenant and not Christ?

Paul was Christ's administrator of the new covenant appointed to do away the letter and to administer the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:5-6). James was letter and Paul was spirit.

Is this something you have just come up with? Where has this hypothesis ever been taught in the Church or in any segment of Christianity?

You are alleging that James was written in 45AD, but somehow saying that it was not written after Christ's death? How does that work exactly? When do you think Christ died?

Yes, James wrote his epistle after Christ's death, but BEFORE the meaning of His death had been given to the church. Until the meaning of Christ's death was revealed to Paul the first Christians had to remain under old covenant principles. Tertullian said, "God must be believed on in His own dispensation." The epistle of James was written while they were still under the dispensation of law. So they had to believe in God accordingly. But after Paul revealed the dispensation of grace they had to believe in God according to the new revelation given them. Therefore, the epistle of James was transitional.

Quote

Are you stating you believe that Paul instituted the new covenant and not Christ?

Paul was Christ's administrator of the new covenant appointed to do away the letter and to administer the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:5-6). James was letter and Paul was spirit.

Is this something you have just come up with? Where has this hypothesis ever been taught in the Church or in any segment of Christianity?

When you're a "Bible only" Christian, you can teach and believe whatever you want.

But as you go on, you ask, "So if John places his faith in Christ, but then goes on to live his life as he sees fit, is he really saved?" Typically, they respond with no because no works came from the faith, so the faith wasn't real. Again, nothing in Orthodox theology would disagree with that; they're right, if faith doesn't produce works then it's not faith. But at the point they say it doesn't produce works, they've just disavowed sola fide.

As one who has been Protestant for many years, I don't think you're totally right on that. Saying that works must result from saving faith is not contradicting sola fide. Sola fide says that we're saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. We are saved by genuine faith, and that genuine faith is shown to be genuine by the good works that grow out of it.

Quote

It's the same with sola scriptura. "By Scripture alone." But when they engage in an argument, they're referring to different Greek dictionaries, different scholars, different interpretations, and so on. If you have to write an exegetical paper in Seminary you're required to use no less than 8 commentaries; so how is that Scripture alone?

I think you're right on this. Recently on the phone, a Protestant friend of mine criticized Orthodoxy because of all the "man-made traditions." So I asked him this question: Do you test all traditions by Scripture? Of course, he replied "yes." I then asked him, "So how did you test the list of 66 books of your Bible using the Bible?" He could not answer it. He tried answering it by pointing to the preservation of Scripture, but I quickly told him that this is not about the preservation but rather the inspiration of Scripture. He tried also to reference the words of Christ, but then I had to remind him that those words are recorded in books that he has not proven to be canonical using Scripture alone. After two long debates over the phone, he was still unable to answer me. He offered to mail me some material that explained it, but I declined it and told him that people on the Internet do that a lot: When they can't answer a question, they refer me to one or more articles. That's mighty fishy. :-)

Quote

That's Scripture plus interpretation plus interpretative traditions. The key, however, is getting them to realize this by questioning them. "If Scripture alone is sufficient, then why is there so much disagreement over how to interpret that Scripture?"

This is not a strong approach, IMO, because it can be easily answered. The variety of conflicting opinions about what Scripture teaches does not prove that Scripture is insufficient or unclear. We all have biases when we read any text, and we all have a particular interpretive grid through which we interpret any text. People can read something that is as clear as anything and yet stubbornly deny what it is saying because it says something that they don't like, that grates against a belief they cherish, etc. So, to put it succinctly: The variety of opinions only demonstrates the bias resident in all human hearts.

Quote

So I ask, "When interpreting Scripture, since you believe all authority derives from Scripture, is it appropriate to quote modern scholars' interpretation on Scripture?" The obvious answer is yes. "Then if it's okay to quote modern scholars, what about ancient scholars, such as Erasmus or Calvin?" The answer to this is, of course, yes. "What about those before them? Can we quote the Church Fathers?" At this point, they may have some hesitation. But the goal is to get them to come up with some non-arbitrary standard as to why modern scholars are acceptable and ancient ones are not. Of course, the entire point isn't necessarily to get them to accept the Tradition of the Church (at least, not yet), but get them to see that they use tradition as much as we do, it's just a different tradition.

This is basically what I tried to get my friend to see when we spoke about this over the phone. Protestants treat the list of 66 books in their Bible as an infallible tradition, even though it came through men and cannot be substantiated using Scripture alone.

Quote

Ultimately, the goal isn't to prove to them that they're wrong and we're right.

Not necessarily. Even if they fight tooth and nail against what you're saying, you could still be planting seeds of thought deep in their minds that could come to fruition later on in their lives. I used to debate Catholics vigorously on the Internet, going back as far as the 90s. I even debated Mark Shea and Steven Greydanus on a listserv! Now, however, I would not be so against the CC as I was back then. Could it be that their arguments resonated with me on some deep level that came to fruition later on? Perhaps.

Not necessarily. Even if they fight tooth and nail against what you're saying, you could still be planting seeds of thought deep in their minds that could come to fruition later on in their lives. I used to debate Catholics vigorously on the Internet, going back as far as the 90s. I even debated Mark Shea and Steven Greydanus on a listserv! Now, however, I would not be so against the CC as I was back then. Could it be that their arguments resonated with me on some deep level that came to fruition later on? Perhaps.

I think this is very true. I know this is how I came to study Orthodoxy.